April 09, 2025 11:58 AM UTC

Boebert Backs Constitution-Busting Assault On Federal Judiciary

• 4 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

Yesterday, the U.S. House debated but then postponed a vote on a bill known as the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), sponsored by California’s Rep. Darrel Issa in response to numerous adversarial judicial rulings since Donald Trump retook office in January that have significantly slowed Trump’s controversial agenda. FOX News touted the measure yesterday:

The No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., would limit district court judges’ ability to issue orders blocking Trump policies nationwide, and Republicans are expected to advance the legislation out of the House Rules Committee and vote this week…

[Rep. Abe] Hamadeh says he supports Issa’s bill, which Issa told Fox News Digital when he introduced it was introduced in February, will push back on the current judge-shopping climate in the United States that he says represents “judicial tyranny” and “weaponization of courts.”

Hamadeh explained that he has signed onto several efforts to impeach some of the judges who have issued nationwide injunctions, knowing that the efforts are unlikely to succeed but to send the message that the sentiment in Congress and with Trump voters is one that believes “enough is enough.”

During yesterday’s debate, Rep. Lauren Boebert threw her famously encyclopedic comprehension of the law into the mix, declaring it’s time to “take back our government from the black-robed bureaucrats.”

I support @RepDarrellIssa’s No Rogue Rulings Act. Unelected judges have issued sweeping, nationwide injunctions to stop President Trump’s authority at every turn.

This isn’t justice – it’s judicial tyranny.

Let’s take back our government from the black-robed bureaucrats. Let’s… pic.twitter.com/YDvOElDgbu

— Rep. Lauren Boebert (@RepBoebert) April 8, 2025

Although the No Rogue Rulings Act is being promoted as a “milder” alternative to impeaching judges who issue rulings contrary to the Trump administration’s wishes, itself an ominous abuse of power fashionable since January, the legislation nonetheless represents a radical alteration of the balance of executive versus judicial authority. It’s a permanent curtailment of judicial review over what amounts to a policy disagreement, and would severely weaken the judiciary’s ability to promptly check executive power–which as we’ve seen since January is the only remaining constraint against the closest to an authoritarian dictatorial agenda we’ve ever seen in America.

Much like Jar Jar Binks calling for Chancellor Palpatine to be granted his calamitous special powers, there’s always a moment in the plot where the good guys are betrayed by a fundamentally clueless figure who short-sightedly believes they are doing the right thing.

Yesterday, Lauren Boebert was America’s Jar Jar Binks.